What should/will happen to Paddington post Crossrail/OOC?

[Horizon22]

This opinion crops up from time to time…

There are some very debatable points made here. For example it assumes that the end destinations of many passengers travelling inbound on the Great Western Main Line lies on a east-west axis through Paddington and that Paddington is further from ‘the centre’ of London than other terminii.

It certainly depends - if people are taking the tube I'd say anecdotally it seems more are taking the Bakerloo which suggests more C. London destinations but of course it could be further beyond. I'm not personally of the impression it's that far from the "centre" but some do.

The stations in Crossrail’s core tunnels directly serve a corridor a few hundred metres from the station entrance - a long thin corridor corresponding to that of the Central Line. There are no car parks, only some Tubes and buses for destinations a bit furthr away. It offers no advantages to people wanting to reach Richmond (as there will be no convenient connection at OOC for decades into the future), Wimbledon, Wembley, Victoria or anywhere along the Euston Road corridor. Many of the London landmarks are not very close to the Crossrail stations either - for all its whizzy technology Crossrail and Tube stations in Zone 1 generally serve destinations within walking distance only.

That's an odd comment and you could say a lot about catchment areas of any major tube station; I'm not sure how exiting a physical station can serve anything but "destinations within walking distance only". Many of the core stations are already big and have bus connections or landmarks nearby. It's certainly going to be a very fast way to get into C. London and also connect to airports for instance. Whilst it is odd there's no connection to the Victoria line, many other places are a simple change away. I'm sure any stations or parts of London could be cherry-picked as "no advantages"

Changing to Crossrail at OOC for passengers on the longer distance trains whose destination is ‘London’ gives no advantage and some disadvantages; a stop will slow down journeys for all those that want other tube lines, taxis for destinations in Zone 1, parts of Zone 2 and buses or even walking to one of the many new offices along the Paddington Basin of the Grand Union Canal. It will be just as easy to change at Paddington for Crossrail, it is where the old cab road for setting down passengers for Departures used to be.

It may well add some benefit if it is permissible to change and go to inner W. London or Heathrow. I'd see OOC as similar to how Clapham Junction or London Bridge (less so as its more central) operates. There might be a small number of trains that don't call if that is deemed suitable. I sincerely doubt it will be as easy to change at Paddington given the number of levels you would need to descend and negotiate to reach the concourse but that will be hard to test until both are open.

What Crossrail will do, as the RER did in Paris and the S-Bahn in Munich, is to bring areas on each side of the central zone closer to each other. Crossing the centres of these and other cities was always slow as the Underground, Métro or U-Bahn have frequent stops as do buses and these are also affected by other road traffic. It has its own equivalent of Paris’s Châtelet/Les Halles at Farringdon where RER-type lines meet. Essentially it is a metro operation and the benefits are mainly within the city.

I don't disagree that it is similar to the RER and I can't comment on whether that had an impact on passengers interchanging at places like Gare Du Nord or Gare du Lyon although it would be interesting to know. It's not as simple as being a metro service and is in many ways inner/outer suburban.

I also struggle with the concept of ‘connectivity’ at OOC. There are two distinct traffic flows on the GW: long(er) distance from Swansea and Cardiff, Penzance and Plymouth, Cheltenham, Worcester, Oxford and Bristol on the one hand and the Thames Valley local services including Crossrail to Heathrow and Reading on the other. The local services will all go through the Crossrail core and passengers on the (Oxford)-Didcot-Paddington services will have a same platform interchange at the station of their choice.

Yes I think it might be interesting how somewhere like Ealing Broadway would have same platform changes with a Crossrail service. That doesn't detract from the overall argument that they still wouldn't be changing at Paddington like now (although many connect with the Central lines at Ealing Broadway or Stratford anyway today).

The issues surrounding connections from HS2 to Crossrail and the GW services were debated here recently so there is nothing really to add. Suffice it to say that there is a lot of sense for HS2 to connect to the Heathrow services and the Thames Valley local services but I was unconvinced that there is a sufficiently large Plymouth, say, to Birmingham flow to justify stopping all the GW Main Line services at OOC. Some people obviously make this journey but I have not been convinced that even if 10 or so people change at OOC off each train it is justified by lengthening the journey time of the other 400 people by 4 or 5 minutes.

It is difficult to know how passenger flows will alter and I agree it has been heavily debated before. The fact of the matter is that people who are going to London are going to all sorts of places as you rightly point out and will OOC help them get their quicker; I don't think it obviously has as many options as Clapham Junction or Stratford, but it may well become a "Western" hub over time and is set to become a rather large destination in its own right if you look at the plans for Old Oak & Park Royal. As as result, it seems reasonable all trains call there and in fact it might be practical for a "all or nothing" approach anyway.

Any capacity released at Paddington by the removal of the local services from the train shed will enable the longer distance offering to be improved: examples are a more frequent and regular semi-fast service down the Berks & Hants to Westbury or Exeter, the introduction of a new service west throught the Vale of the White Horse as a semi-fast towards Bristol calling at the long-proposed stations at Grove (for Wantage), Uffington, Shrivenham, Wootton Basset, Box and Corsham for which paths and Terminal platform capacity is non-existent at the moment. Other suggestions exist. This is much more likely that spending millions to get some of the existing Chiltern services running into Paddington - as the Chiltern journeys are so much shorter any additional fare income is highly unlikely to service the debt.

I too think the Chiltern option is something of a red herring (although it would be interesting to see the best use of the NNL - I personally think a dedicated cycle lane on the disused track to Old Oak Common might be an interesting option). The fact remains that just because Crossrail is going to run through, it releases NO capacity on the main or relief lines (indeed the service is meant to be more intense). Only Paddington/Liverpool St see an uptick in capacity.

 

[Class800]

That is indeed precisely the point of it. Essentially a brand new Clapham Jn, which is not an awfully long way from those respective termini either.

And quite a few long distance fast services do not call at Clapham Junction. I note what others say that all GWR are booked to call at it. It just seems strange stopping an intercity about 2 miles from its origin, prior to the first station on current all stations services Acton Main Line. Will Reading calls be reduced to compensate?

 

[Meerkat]

OOC really needs a proper airport style people mover direct to an improved Willesden Junction with platforms on all lines. That would transform connectivity and keep loads of people out of the central termini, including Paddington. But it would cost a lot and is in the south so however sensible it is it wont be allowed.

 

[coppercapped]

If they are going to stop all HS2 trains there, I don't see much reason not to stop GWML services there too!

A good reason is that the markets are different. HS2 trains are only planned to stop at OOC to avoid overloading the Tubes and buses at Euston with passengers off a sequence of very large trains as, one stop away, these distributors are effectively also shared with Kings Cross and St. Pancras. It is reckoned some 30% (IIRC) of HS2 passengers will change to Crossrail at OOC.

This is not an issue at Paddington. GW passengers can change to Crossrail just as easily at Paddington (only one escalator or lift rather than two), so why stop the Main Line trains?

It would also be a competitive means to reach Bristol from Manchester or points north.

This has been argued to death in other threads. However it assumes that:

• over the next 15 years or so no improvements will be made to the Bristol - Birmingham route
• fares will be competitive
• people will be happy to change rather than take a through train
• the extra loadings on the Bristol - London services can be accommodated, and
• a service will remain on the Bristol - Birmingham - Manchester axis to accommodate all those passengers making intermediate journeys

Would there then be an overall financial benefit to GBR of routing Bristol - Manchester passengers via OOC?

 

[HSTEd]

Would there be an overall financial benefit to GBR of routing Bristol - Manchester passengers via OOC?

Yes, capacity on a Voyager is much more expensive than capacity on an IEP or especially a HS2 train.

One is a short diesel train with huge crewing requirements, the other two are long trains with much smaller crew requirements (and in the case of HS2, 1 crewmember for up to 1100 passengers).

Running a two-three car sprinter or similar unit on the Birmingham-Bristol axis is not going to cost anything like as much as the cost of a through train, especially a Voyager through train

 

[coppercapped]

OOC really needs a proper airport style people mover direct to an improved Willesden Junction with platforms on all lines. That would transform connectivity and keep loads of people out of the central termini, including Paddington. But it would cost a lot and is in the south so however sensible it is it wont be allowed.

It's not that because it's 'in the south' it won't be allowed, but that it won't make financial sense. Simply keeping people out of the termini is not a valid reason.

Unless the changes you suggest increase the number of passengers such that their additional fare income is sufficient to service the debt involved in the construction of all the platforms and people movers needed it won't happen. Benefit - cost analyses are there for a reason.

Yes, capacity on a Voyager is much more expensive than capacity on an IEP or especially a HS2 train.

One is a short diesel train with huge crewing requirements, the other two are long trains with much smaller crew requirements (and in the case of HS2, 1 crewmember for up to 1100 passengers).

Running a two-three car sprinter or similar unit on the Birmingham-Bristol axis is not going to cost anything like as much as the cost of a through train, especially a Voyager through train

And why does the Voyager have huge crewing requirements? To operate the train it only needs a driver and a train manager/guard and with some modifications could be operated with just the driver. In ten years time there will be displaced Voyagers floating around so the trains can be doubled up. DOO multiple unit operation without corridor connections between the units has been a thing on the GW since the Class 165 and 166 were introduced twenty years ago - it is a solved problem.

 

[Meerkat]

It's not that because it's 'in the south' it won't be allowed, but that it won't make financial sense. Simply keeping people out of the termini is not a valid reason.

It is a valid reason if those termini and their onward links are overcrowded. However that wouldnt be the main pro of the plan - better connectivity means more passengers and there would be gains from the development of the surrounding areas.
If you didnt have to go into Paddington and get the tube more people from the west side of London would take the WCML to the north

 

[HSTEd]

And why does the Voyager have huge crewing requirements? To operate the train it only needs a driver and a train manager/guard and with some modifications could be operated with just the driver.

2 crew for 200 passengers? And it could be operated by a single person after a long and incredibly bitter strike that could drag on for a very long time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 crew for 200 passengers?

Go ride Thameslink, where there is one member of crew for over 1000 passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

Go ride Thameslink, where there is one member of crew for over 1000 passengers.

PRecisely, but that cannot be implemented on the Voyager fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

PRecisely, but that cannot be implemented on the Voyager fleet.

No, but it could be operated using two crew, driver in the front, guard in the back, bin the catering if it's not profitable.

 

[cle]

And quite a few long distance fast services do not call at Clapham Junction. I note what others say that all GWR are booked to call at it. It just seems strange stopping an intercity about 2 miles from its origin, prior to the first station on current all stations services Acton Main Line. Will Reading calls be reduced to compensate?

The CJ situation is due to over-capacity and bendy platforms - and not enough of them. Two per direction (as per the Reading rebuild) is now best practice, they are with new signals, within capacity and straight. If SWT and Southern/GatEx could stop everything at Clapham, they would.

I don't think Reading calls will change. What they will, is revert to the HST 25-26 min timings, vs 22-23. With the 800s, that additional call is doable.

To add, the Japanese do these with Ueno and Shinagawa in Tokyo - where one terminus would be too much and too concentrated for a huge metro. In NYC, Newark and Harlem 125th operate as secondary rail-heads for the city. We have this to a lesser, regional degree with Stratford, Vauxhall, Finsbury Park... and CJ. Waterloo East and London Bridge spread the load too. It's absolutely essential for a city of London's size.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To add, the Japanese do these with Ueno and Shinagawa in Tokyo - where one terminus would be too much and too concentrated for a huge metro. In NYC, Newark and Harlem 125th operate as secondary rail-heads for the city. We have this to a lesser, regional degree with Stratford, Vauxhall, Finsbury Park... and CJ. Waterloo East and London Bridge spread the load too. It's absolutely essential for a city of London's size.

And Hamburg stops all IC/ICEs going that way at all of Altona, Dammtor and Hbf. And the Manchester-Scotland services serve both Oxford Road and Picc. I'm sure there are others. And both Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads. And Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. And St Pancras and Stratford. There are loads of examples and it is really not an issue.

 

[Meerkat]

2 crew for 200 passengers? And it could be operated by a single person after a long and incredibly bitter strike that could drag on for a very long time.

Not paying the strikers and not running the trains would save a lot of money. Public support for that strike would be pretty limited

No, but it could be operated using two crew, driver in the front, guard in the back, bin the catering if it's not profitable.

Make the guard do the trolley and check tickets at the same time. Probably enough time on the gap between the stops on XC.

 

[HSTEd]

Make the guard do the trolley and check tickets at the same time. Probably enough time on the gap between the stops on XC.

Wouldn't it just be easier to get people to change at OOC and run a Turbostar from Bristol to Gloucester and portion work it with the Cardiff-Nottingham train?

 

[coppercapped]

2 crew for 200 passengers? And it could be operated by a single person after a long and incredibly bitter strike that could drag on for a very long time.

We are talking about what could happen after HS2 opens to at least Birmingham - so in some years time. At the moment Hitachi are building 10 Class 807 seven coach electric trains and 13 Class 805 five coach bi-mode trains. These latter are due to replace the current diesel Voyager trains used on the West Coast.

I am suggesting that these be transferred to Cross-Country and used to lengthen Cross-Country's existing trains. As I pointed out running coupled multiple units without a gangway connection between the units with only a driver on board has existed for the past twenty years on the GW. Coupled Voyagers are no different. Any further crew will have only customer service responsibilities.

The Voyagers need a refresh/update anyway - it must be possible to add a few more seats by re-jigging the internal arrangements. Such steps as these will reduce the operating cost per seat.

Judging by the current behaviour of at least one of the trades unions strikes will happen anyway. The BedPan electrification was held up by a year for similar reasons. GBR will be a nationalised organisation; the Government has deeper pockets than the private franchisees so I know where I would place my money.

 

[Sm5]

HS2 and passengers from Heathrow.

the myth that just doesnt die.

 

[tomuk]

tbh I think OC is being massively overplayed in its HS2 connection role, if indeed its role is as big as suggested, why arent HS2 services using it, and providing a direct cross London thru service, and onwards to the East and South East, instead of Euston ?

Would save a lot of money on that underground palace at Euston.

Because the CrossRail tunnels will be full with a 24tph stopping service before you try and fit a 18tph HS2 service down it too.

 

[Sm5]

Because the CrossRail tunnels will be full with a 24tph stopping service before you try and fit a 18tph HS2 service down it too.

Then maybe cut some CR trains out, as its suggested they are going to be full of HS2 passengers being forced to change.

 

[MontyP]

Apart from all the places where far more trains are handled at terminuses with fewer platforms.

Such as the SWR metro services at Waterloo where 5 platforms handled 18 services per hour (pre-pandemic) in the peak, although not always successfully!

 

[HST43257]

Then maybe cut some CR trains out, as its suggested they are going to be full of HS2 passengers being forced to change.

You’re suggesting the creation of Castlefield 2.0, with an even worse mix of local and long distance service.

Trains should be running for passengers, not passengers running for trains.

Crossrail is turn up and go, is it not?

if those studies are right and millions of southerners are going to sell the 3 bed semis in Kent, for a 3 bed semi in Brum, and commute on a ticket thats double their current fare.. they should at least get a direct train to work.

Crossrail should be treated as a tube line. Would you suggest that the ECML should have a connection to the Victoria line and squeeze a few more services onto it?

OC is a white elephant, the oppourtunity for a European style 21st century through intercity service across London was squandered.

Connections through London, connections to the south west, connections to Heathrow, connections to the Thames Valley, connections all across the Overground, potential connections to the Chilterns - really a white elephant?

To me Paddington will survive.. its got tubes, buses to the west, south, north and east… OC only has a few select cross London points to offer, plus additional changes that will be required… Victoria, Waterloo passengers are still going to use Paddington XR offers nothing for Londons busier stations.

The plan isn’t to replace OOC - but extra connections are possible and they should be made possible.

if Euston passengers can commute/connect at OC using HS2 to GWR that might be a benefit, over Paddington but will this be permitted ?

I don’t believe that it’ll be pick up/set down only, but Paddington would still not be bad for this given the circle/Hammersmith connection to Euston Square. Either works I guess.

 

[coppercapped]

That's an odd comment and you could say a lot about catchment areas of any major tube station; I'm not sure how exiting a physical station can serve anything but "destinations within walking distance only". Many of the core stations are already big and have bus connections or landmarks nearby. It's certainly going to be a very fast way to get into C. London and also connect to airports for instance. Whilst it is odd there's no connection to the Victoria line, many other places are a simple change away. I'm sure any stations or parts of London could be cherry-picked as "no advantages"

Getting back to this thread...!

I could have phrased this differently. My point was that it seems to me that many posters seem to think that Crossrail will be all things to all men when it comes to getting to destinations through London from the GW. While the effect of full size trains and stations with plenty of circulating area will be a new and very welcome feature in this part of London, Crossrail serves exactly the same areas as the Central Line does now. Between Stratford (E) and Ealing Broadway it will be essentially the Central Line on steroids - and nobody claims the Central Line makes access to all sorts of other areas easier. Mostly it serves those places with walking distance - and is not the worse for it.

It may well add some benefit if it is permissible to change and go to inner W. London or Heathrow. I'd see OOC as similar to how Clapham Junction or London Bridge (less so as its more central) operates. There might be a small number of trains that don't call if that is deemed suitable. I sincerely doubt it will be as easy to change at Paddington given the number of levels you would need to descend and negotiate to reach the concourse but that will be hard to test until both are open.

I was referring, in the context of this thread, about changing out of the fast, long distance GW trains, not HS2 trains. Therefore the question of Heathrow connections and local suburban connections is not applicable. I have already agreed that connections into and out of the suburban trains along the Thames Valley and to Heathrow run by TfL and GW makes sense for some of the passengers using HS2.

Any decision as to differences in ease of connection between the GW fast, long distance trains and Crossrail at either OOC or Paddington will have to wait. At OOC the possible shorter walk is offset by having to use stairs, lifts or escalators twice, once up and once down. At Paddington it may be slightly longer walk for those at the rear of the train but from then on it is only down!

I don't disagree that it is similar to the RER and I can't comment on whether that had an impact on passengers interchanging at places like Gare Du Nord or Gare du Lyon although it would be interesting to know. It's not as simple as being a metro service and is in many ways inner/outer suburban.

I was referring to the parallels between Faringdon and Châtelet-Les-Halles where interchange between east-west and north-south routes is possible.

Within central Paris, i.e., intra-mures, the RER has a very definite métro function as the stations are quite close together, although not quite as close as those on the Métro; it acts as a faster Métro. Once outside the pricing changes - using the RER Line A to La Défense (where I used to work..!) is more expensive than using Métro Line 1, but it is faster...

Outside central Paris the RER is clearly more of a suburban railway.

Yes I think it might be interesting how somewhere like Ealing Broadway would have same platform changes with a Crossrail service. That doesn't detract from the overall argument that they still wouldn't be changing at Paddington like now (although many connect with the Central lines at Ealing Broadway or Stratford anyway today).

It is clear that the number of passengers changing off the suburban trains will drop when Crossrail opens. Equally there will be those changing off Crossrail to continue their journeys via the Circle, Hammersmith and City, Bakerloo and District although, with the exception of the Bakerloo which will have its own dedicated tunnel from the Crossrail station, the walks will be longer. The distance to the bus stops will not change very much.

It is difficult to know how passenger flows will alter and I agree it has been heavily debated before. The fact of the matter is that people who are going to London are going to all sorts of places as you rightly point out and will OOC help them get their quicker; I don't think it obviously has as many options as Clapham Junction or Stratford, but it may well become a "Western" hub over time and is set to become a rather large destination in its own right if you look at the plans for Old Oak & Park Royal. As as result, it seems reasonable all trains call there and in fact it might be practical for a "all or nothing" approach anyway.

The developments at OOC may well become a hub and a destination in its own right. But I would argue that it is very unlikely to be much of an attraction for the passenger from Taunton or Swansea - it is much more likely to be a destination for more local travel like Stratford and for that the rump of the GW outer-suburban services and Crossrail will suffice.

I too think the Chiltern option is something of a red herring (although it would be interesting to see the best use of the NNL - I personally think a dedicated cycle lane on the disused track to Old Oak Common might be an interesting option). The fact remains that just because Crossrail is going to run through, it releases NO capacity on the main or relief lines (indeed the service is meant to be more intense). Only Paddington/Liverpool St see an uptick in capacity.

Yup!

 

[HSTEd]

I do have some sympathy to the idea of Crossrail simply going to Birmingham

But it would at the very least all new stock and I can see TfL not being happy hehe